We finally get around to talking about oral argument on Oral Argument. And, oh do we do so in style. Supreme Court advocate and SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein joins us for a portion of the show to talk about what oral arguments are, whether they are worth their costs, what they accomplish, and more. Joe complains about absurd hypotheticals. Christian is unfamiliar with any other kind. Also, we begin with errata, in which we acknowledge Christian’s abuse of the English language.

This show’s links:


Tom Goldstein’s profile and law firm
SCOTUSblog and its About page
Oral Argument Episode 17: Flesh List, with Kim Krawiec
Kim’s posts here and here about her appearance and with some follow-up information
Subsume
Oyez, a resource for, among other things, audio of Supreme Court oral arguments dating back at least to the 1950s
The U.S. Supreme Court’s own pages for oral argument transcripts and audio
Barry Sullivan, Other Minds: The Use and Uses of Oral Argument
Epstein, Landes, and Posner, Inferring the Winning Party in the Supreme Court from the Pattern of Questioning at Oral Argument
Wikipedia, collecting sources, on Justice Thomas’ approach to oral argument
The Oyez page for Loving v. Virginia, which links to the audio of the oral argument in the historic case striking down state bans on interracial marriage
Ronald Collins, Hypothetically Speaking: Justice Breyer’s Dialectical Propensities
Joshua Stein, Tentative Oral Opinions: Improving Oral Argument Without Spending a Dime
Oyez page for Kelo v. City of New London
Oral argument transcript in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, just search for “King Tut” within this document
Adam Liptak, A Taxonomy of Supreme Court Humor
Jay Wexler, Laugh Track II - Still Laughin’!
Special Guest: Tom Goldtsein.